From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ENKsM-0007Ia-8r for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:48:50 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j961dn0Q007192; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 01:39:49 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j961dmEx018062 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2005 01:39:49 GMT Received: from cpe-65-26-255-237.wi.res.rr.com ([65.26.255.237] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ENKrq-0005fa-BY; Thu, 06 Oct 2005 01:48:18 +0000 Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:48:26 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: michael.haubenwallner@salomon.at Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID... Message-ID: <20051006014825.GP13519@nightcrawler> References: <20051005232236.GE13519@nightcrawler> <20051006003835.59140f4b@snowdrop.home> <20051005234046.GG13519@nightcrawler> <20051006011353.4a2a84c2@snowdrop.home> <20051006010134.GL13519@nightcrawler> <20051006020732.1bbfa8c4@snowdrop.home> <20051006011740.GM13519@nightcrawler> <20051006022347.5c8e608b@snowdrop.home> <20051006013219.GN13519@nightcrawler> <20051006024058.10f9e51a@snowdrop.home> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hHiQ9nAwW5IGN2dL" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051006024058.10f9e51a@snowdrop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: f1b3df31-752c-4848-8802-982df3119869 X-Archives-Hash: ba77a7afd04018253a9baf3cbf3a9ffa --hHiQ9nAwW5IGN2dL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:40:58AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:32:20 -0500 Brian Harring >=20 > Portage is considerably less work than the tree. Saving as much effort > as possible from an ebuild perspective should be a major consideration, > even if it makes the portage side more complicated. Think of how all > the ebuild-related problems are going to be solved first. Don't leave > it as an afterthought. Round and round we go. The ebuild related problems aren't going to be solved in portage till=20 someone has a general solution that can be pushed into=20 portage/ebuild.sh base template. That's something that requires=20 people diving in and screwing with it. > | My point experimentation can start for addressing the issues you keep= =20 > | pointing at still stands. >=20 > The sensible place to start experimenting is by adapting existing > ebuilds and tinkering with ebuild.sh, not by adding something which may > or may not end up being relevant to portage proper. Bluntly, what the hell do you think we're talking about here? In case=20 you haven't caught on, there *are* portage modifications that have to=20 go with it, meaning more then ebuild.sh. Regardless, I'll backport haubi's patch to stable if anyone is after=20 screwing with it, unless michael's has a version that applies cleanly=20 to .53_rc4. Enough dancing, would rather hand it off to those who are=20 interested, and see what they come up with rather then fencing via=20 email (and accomplishing nothing). Michael, got anything I can mold to .5*, or just backport the 2.1 mod? ~harring --hHiQ9nAwW5IGN2dL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDRIJpvdBxRoA3VU0RAgz2AJ0Wl2qF35BtMYT464jna6j5uoDq7QCfV96C TpOdCAms2GmX6Gj0jD0LhAc= =0TJr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hHiQ9nAwW5IGN2dL-- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list